‘Professor Nils Hoppe and Katy Rensten, both of Coram Chambers, look at the House of Commons debate and the proposed regulations concerning mitochondrial donation and argue for a serious and measured consideration of this important development.’

‘There are times when individual need comes up against the inflexible principles of the law and the outcome seems unjustifiably harsh. This is just such a case – where a relatively modest claim based on individual clinical need was refused with no breach of public law principles. As it happens, since the Court rejected her case, the the young woman concerned has been offered private support for the therapy she was seeking. The case is nevertheless an interesting illustration of the sometimes difficult “fit” between principles of public law and the policy decisions behind the allocation of NHS resources.’

‘Pursuant to section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998, regulation 4(3)(b) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Statutory Storage Period for Embryos and Gametes) Regulations 2009 was required to be construed in a purposive way so as to ensure compatibility with rights under article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.’

‘Elizabeth Warren -v- Care Fertility (Northampton) Limited and Other [2014] EWHC 602 (Fam). The High Court has ruled in favour of a 28-year-old woman who wanted her late husband’s sperm to be retained even though the correct written consent was not in place. Mrs Justice Hogg (“Hogg J”) ruled that Mrs Warren has a right under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to respect for private and family life) to decide to become a parent by her deceased husband.’

‘Physiotherapist Beth Warren, 28, from Birmingham, today won a High Court battle with the UK fertility regulator. A judge ruled in Mrs Warren’s favour after a trial in London. But Mrs Justice Hogg gave the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) the go-ahead to take the case to the appeal court.’

“The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, established under section 5 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, did not have power to impose a condition which took effect on a licence prior to completion of the full statutory process up to and including the appeal process provided for in section 20 of the 1990 Act.”